The definition of nothingness exactly

[Randolpin]

30 minutes ago, DrP said:

I don't think you can say there was nothing before T=0...   

 

I can say it was nothing because there is no spacetime or physical space and time in that state. I can conclude that if T=0 therefore it a boundary between timeless and the time state. If before T is timeless and nothing then what is left? What is the cause of the universe? This is a question that philosophy can answer. As Dr. Craig points out there is transcendent, immaterial, spaceless and timeless property required for the universe to originate in that situation and there is only two candidates that possibly fits that property either abstract objects like numbers or else an unembodied mind or consciousness. But abstract objects like the number 1 can't cause to create anything. So plausibly we are left with an unembodied mind being the cause of the universe.

Edited February 22, 2018 by Randolpin

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

I can say it was nothing because there is no spacetime or physical space and time in that state. I can conclude that if T=0 therefore it a boundary between timeless and the time state. If before T is timeless and nothing then what is left? What is the cause of the universe? This is a question that philosophy can answer. As Dr. Craig points out there is transcendent, immaterial, spaceless and timeless property required for the universe to originate in that situation and there is only two candidates that possibly fits that property either abstract objects like numbers or else an embodied mind or consciousness. But abstract objects like the number 1 can't cause to create anything. So plausibly we are left with an embodied mind being the cause of the universe.

Oh, come on, at least try to keep up... 

No-one can ever know because we literally can't see that far back...

[studiot]

30 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

But the metaphysical definition of nothing is that nothing produces nothing therefore it has no properties that will operate to produce something. Let's base on the metaphysical aspect.

 

Maybe so, can you provide a reference for this definition?

Let me get this quite straight.

 

nothing is defined as that which produces nothing?

 

or did you have better wording in mind, because nothing produces nothing is not a definition of nothing, unless it is recursive.

Edited February 22, 2018 by studiot

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

I can say it was nothing because there is no spacetime or physical space and time in that state. I can conclude that if T=0 therefore it a boundary between timeless and the time state. 

You can say this, it doesn't make it true. 

Quote

If before T is timeless and nothing then what is left? What is the cause of the universe?

You are making an illogical argument. 

You are saying (with no evidence) that the universe cam from nothing, and then asking what caused it. 

There is no evidence that there was "metaphysical nothing" before the universe.

There is no evidence that the universe came from nothing.

There is no evidence that the universe was caused.

10 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

As Dr. Craig points out there is transcendent, immaterial, spaceless and timeless property required for the universe to originate in that situation

1. There is no reason at all to think that the universe originated in that situation.

2. Even if it did (it didn't) then there is no reason to think it requires a "transcendent, immaterial, spaceless and timeless property".

11 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

So plausibly we are left with an embodied mind being the cause of the universe.

Nope. No cause, no embodied mind. (And what would t be embodied in before the universe existed?)

[Randolpin]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

Nope. No cause, no embodied mind. (And what would t be embodied in before the universe existed?)

Sorry that's not embodied but actually unembodied. I am not perfect.

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Randolpin said:

Sorry that's not embodied but actually unembodied. I am not perfect.

That's OK. There is no rational reason to believe in such a thing either way.

[DrP]

So I was right when I said that this topic was an obfusticated attempt to trap us into a discussion that would lead to 'the BBT can't be true because "nothing can't come from nothing"' again.   Shame.

Edited February 22, 2018 by DrP

[Randolpin]

6 minutes ago, DrP said:

So I was right when I said that this topic was an obfusticated attempt to trap us into a discussion that would lead to 'the BBT can't be true because "nothing can't come from nothing"' again.   Shame.

Does this topic says that bbt is not true? In fact various evidences thru time supports the bbt like the cosmic background wave radiation, the expanding universe and the abundance of hydrogen.

Edited February 22, 2018 by Randolpin

[dimreepr]

33 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Is that a joke??? I'm not sure but I want to laugh... 

Come on guys that's gotta be worth a lol at least 

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Randolpin said:

Does this topic says that bbt is not true? In fact various evidences thru time supports the bbt like the cosmic background wave radiation, the expanding universe and the abundance of hydrogen.

But there is NO evidence it was created.

And if it was created, there is no reason to think it was created from your "metaphysical nothing".

This is really silly. You have invented a state of nothingness from which nothing can be created. Then you have invented the fact that the universe was created from it. I think I will invent the fact that you don't exist.

[studiot]

11 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

 I am not perfect.

Is that why you keep avoiding my questions?

[DrP]

So - back to 'what is nothing' - where do these particle pairs, that pop into and out of existence, come from? The antimatter/matter particle pairs that destroy each other that were reported recently I mean (er..  a few years back even?).

 

I guess that the answer is that we just do not know and have not thought of any way to test it yet?

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

Is that why you keep avoiding my questions?

He tends to engage until you give him something that he can't defend against or answer...  then he goes quiet and comes back with something similar or a different line of arguing the same tired debunked point.

If God himself came down from heaven and stated in a press conference to the world that he did not exist...  he STILL wouldn't believe it.  ;-)

[Randolpin]

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

But there is NO evidence it was created.

And if it was created, there is no reason to think it was created from your "metaphysical nothing".

This is really silly. You have invented a state of nothingness from which nothing can be created. Then you have invented the fact that the universe was created from it. I think I will invent the fact that you don't exist.

I don't say that the universe is created by nothing (no physical space, no time) so we can infer it must be cause by transcendent, immaterial, spaceless and timeless property. And only 2 candidate that fits that description.

Edited February 22, 2018 by Randolpin

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, DrP said:

So - back to 'what is nothing' - where do these particle pairs, that pop into and out of existence, come from? The antimatter/matter particle pairs that destroy each other that were reported recently I mean (er..  a few years back even?).

From the non-zero energy of the ground state of the vacuum.

Why is the ground state not zero? Because the Heisenberg principle says the value must have a range of values, that range cannot go below zero and therefore the average value must be greater than zero. (I don't know if that is strictly accurate, but it should be close!)

[DrP]

Just now, Randolpin said:

 and we can infer it must be cause by transcendent, immaterial, spaceless and timeless property. And only 2 candidate that fits that description.

Wot?

[Strange]

Just now, Randolpin said:

I don't say that the universe is created by nothing (no physical space, no time) so we can infer it must be cause by transcendent, immaterial, spaceless and timeless property. And only 2 candidate that fits that description.

Only if you believe it was created. And believe in a " transcendent, immaterial, spaceless and timeless property".

I see no reason to believe either of those things.

[DrP]

Any evidence for them?

[studiot]

20 minutes ago, DrP said:

 

He tends to engage until you give him something that he can't defend against or answer...  then he goes quiet and comes back with something similar or a different line of arguing the same tired debunked point.

If God himself came down from heaven and stated in a press conference to the world that he did not exist...  he STILL wouldn't believe it.  ;-)

Thanks.

 

I have two simple points of logic to make.

1)

Given that nothing 'exists' (or existed if you prefer) and that something exists it cannot be held that nothing has no properties since there must be somewhere (even if only in my mind) where nothing exists and also somewhere (else) where something exists. So nothing has the property that it shares a boundary with something.

 

2)

To create is a transitive verb which therefore requires a creator. No problem with that.

But even the authors of the Bible and past Christian material understood this.
That is why for instance the early authors wrote the hymn line "Begotton not created"

But the existance of creators and creations does not mean that other methods/modes (non creative) of appearance are precluded.

For instance

a) spontaneous appearance

or

b) Happenstance
 

Edited February 22, 2018 by studiot

[ydoaPs]

1 hour ago, Randolpin said:

I think you mean the singularity moment of the bigbang. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem shows that the universe is inescapably requires a beginning.

Despite how often apologists with no understanding of physics make this claim, it's not true. Fyi, two of the three have publicly stated that the above quoted claim is false, while the third, afaik, has not commented on the subject. 

Pro tip: Don't get your science from people who are paid to lie to gullible people

[Randolpin]

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

Only if you believe it was created. And believe in a " transcendent, immaterial, spaceless and timeless property".

I see no reason to believe either of those things.

But it begin to exist. 

[Strange]

Just now, Randolpin said:

But it begin to exist. 

There is no reason to believe that. 

[Randolpin]

Just now, ydoaPs said:

Despite how often apologists with no understanding of physics make this claim, it's not true. Fyi, two of the three have publicly stated that the above quoted claim is false, while the third, afaik, has not commented on the subject. 

Pro tip: Don't get your science from people who are paid to lie to gullible people

I am not a lier, I only search the evidences and where it leads and it leads me to confirm my faith.

[studiot]

Still avoiding answering then?

[dimreepr]

Just now, Randolpin said:

I am not a lier, I only search the evidences and where it leads and it leads me to confirm my faith.

That seems such a shame, you'll never learn anything.

[Silvestru]

Just now, Randolpin said:

I am not a lier, I only search the evidences and where it leads and it leads me to confirm my faith.

Why are you on this forum. I really don't understand it. If you want to brainwash people, these skeptical, reasonable folk are not your crowd.

I can recommend the Trump party forum for that.